O presente trabalho trata das tutelas antecipadas em processos coletivos a partir do tratamento legal diferenciado dado pelo legislador e das considerações jurídicas não-legais próprias do seu objeto. Por meio de estudo comparado, o trabalho pretende enfrentar as dificuldades inerentes à complexidade das relações envolvidas, dando especial atenção à função do desenho da tutela antecipada, ao conceito de irreparabilidade e irreversibilidade, e à aplicação dos requisitos balance of hardships e interesse público. A análise passa pelas teorias da decisão judicial a fim de dar perspectiva à necessidade de um procedimento deliberativo mais complexo e minucioso para fins de responsividade das decisões judiciais. Ademais, explorase a adjudicaçãoo pragmática elaborada por Richard Posner e pretende-se sua aplicação aos processos coletivos por meio da introdução da análise de custo-benefício como procedimento decisório welfarista moralmente relevante, mas não moralmente decisivo. / This thesis focuses on the preliminary injunctions in class actions, having as the starting point the different legal treatment given by the legislator and the non-legal jurídical considerations that flows from its nature. By means of a comparative study, the work intends to face the inherent difficuties of the complex relationships entailed, paying extra attention to the function of the preliminary injunction structure, to the concept of irreparability and irreversibility, and to the way the requirements of balance of hardships and public interest apply. The analysis passes through the theories of the judicial decision-making process in order to give perspective to the need of more complex deliberative proceedings which must be done in full details to reach accountability. Furthermore, the work explores the pragmatic adjudication elaborated by Richard Posner and intends its application to class actions by means of the introduction of cost-benefit analysis as a welfarist decision-making procedure that is morally relevant, but not morally decisive.

O presente trabalho trata das tutelas antecipadas em processos coletivos a partir do tratamento legal diferenciado dado pelo legislador e das considerações jurídicas não-legais próprias do seu objeto. Por meio de estudo comparado, o trabalho pretende enfrentar as dificuldades inerentes à complexidade das relações envolvidas, dando especial atenção à função do desenho da tutela antecipada, ao conceito de irreparabilidade e irreversibilidade, e à aplicação dos requisitos balance of hardships e interesse público. A análise passa pelas teorias da decisão judicial a fim de dar perspectiva à necessidade de um procedimento deliberativo mais complexo e minucioso para fins de responsividade das decisões judiciais. Ademais, explorase a adjudicaçãoo pragmática elaborada por Richard Posner e pretende-se sua aplicação aos processos coletivos por meio da introdução da análise de custo-benefício como procedimento decisório welfarista moralmente relevante, mas não moralmente decisivo. / This thesis focuses on the preliminary injunctions in class actions, having as the starting point the different legal treatment given by the legislator and the non-legal jurídical considerations that flows from its nature. By means of a comparative study, the work intends to face the inherent difficuties of the complex relationships entailed, paying extra attention to the function of the preliminary injunction structure, to the concept of irreparability and irreversibility, and to the way the requirements of balance of hardships and public interest apply. The analysis passes through the theories of the judicial decision-making process in order to give perspective to the need of more complex deliberative proceedings which must be done in full details to reach accountability. Furthermore, the work explores the pragmatic adjudication elaborated by Richard Posner and intends its application to class actions by means of the introduction of cost-benefit analysis as a welfarist decision-making procedure that is morally relevant, but not morally decisive.

The criminal law has been critiqued as an unsuitable system to regulate adverse medical events (AME) because the unintentional nature of AME renders it incompatible with the penal objectives of the criminal law. This project uses an interpretivist approach to examine how blameworthiness is constructed in criminal cases involving AME. Situated within a contextual constructionist paradigm, and utilizing a theoretical framework that draws on legal pragmatism, symbolic interactionism, Habermasian thought, and Goffmanian frame analysis, this project employs a case study approach to explore how appellate courts construct AME as a product of fate or agency. The British case of Bawa-Garba v. R. (2016) and the Canadian case of R. v. Javanmardi (2019) are analysed using thematic analysis. It is concluded that the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Javanmardi constructed the AME within the realm of fate, contrasting the minority in Javanmardi and full panel of the England and Wales Court of Appeal in Bawa-Garba which constructed the AME within the realm of agency. It is also concluded that the majority in Javanmardi utilised pragmatic adjudication to determine blameworthiness. It is suggested that these findings could reduce fear of criminal liability among Canadian health care professionals. Future research is suggested to examine the legal cultures underlying this variation, critically explore the intersection of race and criminal prosecution of AME, and apply structural violence as a theoretical frame to further interrogate AME as a systemic failure.